The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors, misunderstanding of the legal principles) is that the Defendant is in charge of collecting, transporting, and disposing of wastes entrusted by the Daejeon Daejeon Police Station, and thus, the ownership of the above wastes cannot be deemed to be attributed to the Defendant. In fact, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs and the Ministry of Justice have authoritative interpretation as to the ownership of the above wastes to a third party, not the Defendant, and there is no particular provision on the Wastes Control Act concerning the Defendant’s liability in the event of the occurrence of the problems, such as loss or damage in the course of transporting the above wastes. In such a case, there is a need for the application of the Trucking Transport Business Act, and in fact, there is a need for the application of the Trucking Transport Business Act. In full view of the fact that the Defendant Company’s act constitutes a commercial transport of freight, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts

Judgment

The term "act of offering or leasing a private truck for compensation" in the relevant law shall be deemed to mean "act of providing a private truck for compensation" or "act of leasing" with a private truck.

(2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence, “the cost transport of cargo” under the Trucking Transport Business Act is premised on the premise that “the cost transport of cargo by the owner of the cargo or the cargo owned by a third party is to be transferred to the designated place by the owner of the cargo in return for money from the owner of the cargo,” and the transport of the cargo by the Defendant constitutes “the cost transport of the cargo” under the Trucking Transport Business Act.